FRANCISCO vs THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003

CARPIO MORALES, J.

FACTS:
The House of Representative conducted an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the
manner of disbursement and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).
Former President Joseph Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice
Hilario Davide Jr and seven other justices for culpable violation of the constitution,
betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes.
The House Committee of Justice voted to dismiss the complaint for being insufficient in
substance. The next day Rep. Gilberto Teodoro Jr. filed a second impeachment
complaint against the Chief Justice for a period of not more than one year after the first
impeachment complaint.
Thus, arose the instant petitions against the House of Representatives. Most of which
petitions content that the filing of second complaint is unconstitutional as it violates the
provision of Section 5 of Article XI of the Constitution that no impeachment proceedings
shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.
However, the House of Representatives contend that the petitions be dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction of the Court over the issues and that the sole power, authority, and
jurisdiction of the Senate as the impeachment court to try and decide the impeachment
cases.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the second impeachment complaint filed against Chief Justice
Hilario Davide Jr. constitutional?
2. Whether or not the Supreme Court can extend its power on judicial review on the
impeachment case?

RULING:
1. No. The second impeachment complaint filed against Chief Justice Hilario
Davide Jr. is not constitutional.

Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing of the
impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice, the
initial action taken thereon, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes
clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated in the foregoing
 manner, another may not be filed against the same official within a one year
period following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.

In fine, considering that the first impeachment complaint, was filed by former
President Estrada against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., along with seven
associate justices of this Court, on June 2, 2003 and referred to the House
Committee on Justice on August 5, 2003, the second impeachment complaint
filed by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William Fuentebella
against the Chief Justice on October 23, 2003 violates the constitutional
prohibition against the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same
impeachable officer within a one-year period.

2. Yes. The Supreme Court can extend its power on judicial review on
impeachment case.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.

There exists no constitutional basis for the contention that the exercise of judicial
review over impeachment proceedings would upset the system of checks and
balances. Verily, the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and one section
is not to be allowed to defeat another. Both are integral components of the
calibrated system of independence and interdependence that insures that no
branch of government act beyond the powers assigned to it by the Constitution.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in

Impeachment Proceedings which were approved by the House of Representatives on
November 28, 2001 are unconstitutional. Consequently, the second impeachment
complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. which was filed by
Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella with the
Office of the Secretary General of the House of Representatives on October 23, 2003 is
barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution